JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short “Cr.P.C.”) is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in connection with FIR No. 295/2005 at PS DBG Road, Delhi for the offence punishable under Sections 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short “IPC”).

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 07.07.2005 at about 7:30 AM., one Pankaj Kumar Sharma (“complainant”) was present a little ahead of Bus Stand, Pocket A-1, Khoda Road. One Maruti car bearing registration No.DL-7C-7447 hit against him on account of which he fell down on the ground. Ashok Nagar (Accused No.1), Arvind Nagar (Accused No.2) and Ajay Kumar (Accused No.3) came out of the said Car. Accused No.2 caught hold of him while both the remaining accused persons who were armed with iron rods, attacked him and on account of which he sustained injuries on various part of his body including head injuries resulting in him becoming unconscious. He regained consciousness in the hospital. On the statement of injured, a case under Section 308/34 of the IPC was registered against the accused persons. During investigation, accused persons were arrested and upon completion of investigation chargesheet was filed against all the three accused persons to face trial for the offence under Section 308/34 of the IPC.

3. The respondents/accused persons pleaded not guilty. Charges were framed vide order dated 19.04.2007 under Section 308/34 of the IPC. The learned trial court after appreciating the entire evidence and material available on record acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence, the State is in this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the State then made two broad submissions—firstly, that learned sessions court has ignored the testimony of the complainant who was examined as PW-4 and had identified all the accused persons in court as being the persons who had caused injuries to him. It is argued that the statement was corroborated by the medical evidence, provided in the testimonies of Dr. Sushil Kumar i.e., PW-1, Dr. Rachna Jain i.e., PW-8 and Dr. Ganesh i.e., PW-9. Secondly, and learned counsel has argued that the contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses have been given undue weight, while ignoring the passage of time between incident taking place and the trial commencing, and the appreciation of the statements of the witnesses are thus bad in law, given they do not go to the root of the

Prosecution’s case.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned trial court has rightly come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case as the testimonies of the witnesses especially the complainant and his brother-in-law (PW-7) are not reliable and it will be unsafe to convict the accused persons. The complainant (PW-4) claimed that demand of payment of the dues for milk sale was the only reasons for the attack on the complainant, however, he failed to show that any such amount was due. The complainant stated that he was directly taken to the hospital from the place of incident, whereas, his brother-in-law (PW-7) deposed that he was taken to his house and then to the hospital, from the place of incident. There are various inconsistencies in the statements of the brother-in-law as the blood stains were not found on the spot as stated by him, the place of incident was incorrect as stated by the brother-in-law (PW-7) which proves that he did not visit the place of incident. There are material inconsistencies in the statement of the complainant and his brother-in-law.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses to prove the charges against the re